The AVFC FFP thread

[MWARLEY2]

I think that us supposedly hitting ffp limits is the business plan anyway for the time being. We will spend every last penny we can to try and improve us as a club on and off the pitch  

So floating close to the edge is exactly where we want to be . Its nothing to be down about. In fact it exposes how ambitious we are.  

[Lerner's Driver]

Presume Bardell loves him because he gave him a break and helped him get started in saying not very much for a living. Curious that though because he really didn't want to be doing his podcast last night.

At one point, after making the same FFP point for the fifteenth time and hearing Dan say the opposite, he commented on the fading light and suggested it must be nearly time to end the podcast.

[Awol]

41 minutes ago, Lerner's Driver said:

Presume Bardell loves him because he gave him a break and helped him get started in saying not very much for a living. Curious that though because he really didn't want to be doing his podcast last night.

At one point, after making the same FFP point for the fifteenth time and hearing Dan say the opposite, he commented on the fading light and suggested it must be nearly time to end the podcast.

Icing on the cake when he started implying that NSWE had basically blagged Emery to join with the promise of major funds that may not be there.

I thought he’d improved a bit recently but that was a car crash. I’ve no doubt Bardell has better sources at the club than Evans, who came across every bit as a bitter rival fan. 

[CVByrne]

1 hour ago, MrBlack said:

Sadly I think we'd be lucky to sell them for 15m, let alone 30m.

But even then, its a price worth accepting for them given the salary savings it releases. Really important to sell as many of these as possible (or loan them out at full salary).

I can't see us selling them for as little as 15m they had good loan spells and have a value. 

Chambers is also on the list for sale too now. He's a good player so will get a profit on him too.

[Made In Aston]

4 hours ago, david-avfc said:

Next summer Wesley, Traore, Nakamba will be released, that’s at least £50m of transfers off the book in one go,

That's not how amortisation works. It's the total transfer fee ÷ length of contract (in years) that comes off the accounts every year until the end of the contract. So in Wesley's case it's 5m a year off the books each year (25m÷5). Traore is about 4m a year and nakamba about 2.5m. So in 12 months time about 11m will be off the balance sheet. We will also have an extra 9m headroom on wages with them leaving. 

That's why Chelsea came under scrutiny as they were handing out 8 year contracts to reduce their yearly amortisation for FFP. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Made In Aston

[Jas10]

https://www.myoldmansaid.com/aston-villa-to-go-bold-in-the-summer-transfer-market/?amp

 

Quote

In short, they were going to be “bold” next season. Roughly translated, the gloves were coming off in terms of the owner’s ambition and goals.

After five years, Purslow reasoned they were now at the “best of the rest” level they had sought (knocking on the door of the established Top Six). So, it was a question of what next?

Quote

Purslow confirmed that this boldness in attitude would of course extend to the summer transfer window. He said, that it hadn’t been possible to go so ambitious previously, as while they had a potentially talented squad, obviously the coaching staff hadn’t been realising their potential. It’s a safer bet now to speculate for success with a much more favourable risk-reward ratio.

 

[Jas10]

 

 

 

[Jas10]

 

[Jas10]

 

[tomsky_11]

On 30/06/2023 at 09:38, ender4 said:

The only thing i can think off is that the Grealish leeway drops away for the 23/24 season, yet all the players we sign this summer will still be here in terms of salary and amortisation. So next summer might be really tight and if we don't get a massive bump from Europe & commercial, we might need to sell to buy next summer.

Grealish sale was 21/22, so is within the three year assessment period to 23/24. Things get trickier in 24/25 without further sales, increased revenue and/or decreased costs.

[tomsky_11]

21 hours ago, Jas10 said:

 

 

 

Sorry, what is this guy on about?!

[Sam-AVFC]

22 hours ago, Jas10 said:

 

That is not right at all. If we make sales of £120m every summer we can keep spending that year after year, but his figures are way off.

[tomsky_11]

11 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

That is not right at all. If we make sales of £120m every summer we can keep spending that year after year, but his figures are way off.

Yeah I've no idea how he's trying to explain it and the numbers he's using look way off as well.

Weirdly he's not far off in terms of the extra £20M of salary plus £190M as being possible without breaking FFP if he's calling all else equal to 22/23. Assuming that £190M is split over 5 years, it's £38M + £20M salary increase = £58M total losses on top of 22/23 figure. 21/22 was a adjusted profit of £21M, so take that from £58M gives £37M losses from 21/22 plus the increase in losses in 23/24 over 22/23. Then take that £37M from the £105M max allowed losses gives £68M, divide that by two gives you the max adjusted loss in 22/23, so £34M. I reckon we are probably somewhere around £35-40M in adjusted losses in 22/23 so it's not far off.

Obviously he completely ignores that maxing out the FFP loss limit in 23/24 would be a dangerous thing to do with £21M of adjusted profits falling out of the equation in 24/25, that would then need to be replicated in 24/25 books while also carrying forward a starting point of around £90M adjusted losses, ie. would need £110M of sales profit, increased revenue and/or decreased costs to not fail FFP in 24/25 if we max out in 23/24.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

4 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

Yeah I've no idea how he's trying to explain it and the numbers he's using look way off as well.

Weirdly he's not far off in terms of the extra £20M of salary plus £190M as being possible without breaking FFP if he's calling all else equal to 22/23. Assuming that £190M is split over 5 years, it's £38M + £20M salary increase = £58M total losses on top of 22/23 figure. 21/22 was a adjusted profit of £21M, so take that from £58M gives £37M losses from 21/22 plus the increase in losses in 23/24 over 22/23. Then take that £37M from the £105M max allowed losses gives £68M, divide that by two gives you the max adjusted loss in 22/23, so £34M. I reckon we are probably somewhere around £35-40M in adjusted losses in 22/23 so it's not far off.

Obviously he completely ignores that maxing out the FFP loss limit in 23/24 would be a dangerous thing to do with £21M of adjusted profits falling out of the equation in 24/25, that would then need to be replicated in 24/25 books while also carrying forward a starting point of around £90M adjusted losses, ie. would need £110M of sales profit, increased revenue and/or decreased costs to not fail FFP in 24/25 if we max out in 23/24.

Now explain this in idiot English please?

Are we skint, loaded, or somewhere in between?

[ender4]

3 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Now explain this in idiot English please?

Are we skint, loaded, or somewhere in between?

We are ok for now, but if we spend massively this summer then in future summers things can get really tight and we might have to do an Everton in 2025 to not break FFP.

[tomsky_11]

14 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Now explain this in idiot English please?

Are we skint, loaded, or somewhere in between?

I’ve said before I reckon £100M on 4 players averaging £100K pw is reasonable outlay and doesn’t push us to the limit.

What my post outlined above was that, all else being equal in 23/24 compared to 22/23, if we spent what that Twitter guy said we’d maybe pass ffp, but only just.

But important to remember we should see a decent revenue increase in 23/24 via a few sources, while we should hopefully see some fringe player sales that bring us back to a reasonable loss level that doesn’t screw us in 24/25.

[CVByrne]

17 hours ago, tomsky_11 said:

Sorry, what is this guy on about?!

Absolutely nothing he's talking nonsense

 

FFP is not hard to understand. We have income, and expenditure. Salary comes out annually, transfer fees are spread evenly over the life of the contract so 100m fee on 5 year contract = 20m per year in "amortisation". So every player has 2 expenditures salary and amortisation.

If we sell a player the remaining amortisation on their fee is their "value" in our accounts and you subtract that number from the sale fee. So if sell a player we bought for 100m after 2 season for 150m then we book a profit on the player of 150m - 60m (3 years left at 20m) = 90m. 

So players we paid no fee for are sold at a 100% profit. You add up the last 3 years of accounts income minus salary and transfer fee amortisation and the number you get has to be less than 105m loss or you break FFP.

Edited July 2, 2023 by CVByrne

[Follyfoot]

15 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Now explain this in idiot English please?

Are we skint, loaded, or somewhere in between?

Basically mate , the guy is saying by spending big we are, we are potentially fattening foul for mongoose in the coming seasons 

(I used this analogy yesterday, and my eldest son said ‘not dad and he’s mongoose saying again’) 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Follyfoot

[alreadyexists]

18 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

Basically mate , the guy is saying by spending big we are, we are potentially fattening foul for mongoose in the coming seasons 

(I used this analogy yesterday, and my eldest son said ‘not dad and he’s mongoose saying again’) 

Well that’s cleared it up.

[Villaphan04]

In listening to the most recent 1874 with Dan and GE, I think that I can somewhat understand Evans point. We should not be at a point where we keep players around who will not have a big role with us. I know having the more games with Europe will provide mean we need a slightly bigger squad but sell players who can help us more with FFP than on the pitch.